Jimmy Carr tax affairs 'morally wrong' - Cameron

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18521468

Prime Minister David Cameron has said the tax arrangements of comedian Jimmy Carr are "morally wrong".
He made the comment to ITV News after reports that Carr was understood to be a member of a legal but aggressive tax avoidance scheme.

and yet...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ens?CMP=twt_gu

David Cameron's father ran a network of offshore investment funds to help build the family fortune that paid for the prime minister's inheritance, the Guardian can reveal.
Though entirely legal, the funds were set up in tax havens such as Panama City and Geneva, and explicitly boasted of their ability to remain outside UK tax jurisdiction.

Hmm! I'm sure someone will be along to inform me as to why the two cases are not the same.

[LondonRoad]

Ask how much Jimmy Carr contributes to the Conservative Party?

I'm sure there's a level of contribution that would have resulted in Cameron praising Jimmy Carr.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by LondonRoad

Ask how much Jimmy Carr contributes to the Conservative Party?

I'm sure there's a level of contribution that would have resulted in Cameron praising Jimmy Carr.

He's not a tory which conveniently answers Maggy's question re the difference between cases

Jimmy Carr's tax arrangements are morally wrong. There is something to be paid for being sensible and using the tax system to ensure you don't overpay tax, so you abide by the sprit of the regulations and ensure you're not accidentally getting taxed twice or getting taxed on items that were not meant to be considered.

However it's something else entirely when you use loopholes that are only there because it's something the Inland Revenue hadn't yet considered, like a hacker exploiting a series of software bugs to break a system. When you pay a fraction of the relative tax rate that everyone else pays then that is morally wrong. You can't justify that imo, it's not being overtaxed, it's paying hardly any tax. When Carr says he pays the tax he is meant to pay and not a fraction more he is wrong. He is not paying what he is meant to pay, he is abusing the system as close as he gain without getting throw in jail to ensure he doesn't pay anywhere near what he is meant to pay.

That Cameron's father was also morally wrong doesn't detract any responsibility from Jimmy Carr.

Society should make these kinds of actions shameful and unacceptable. I can't stand the defence that a lot of his fans are offering that 'he hasn't done anything illegal'. Is this really is how little we've come to expect of each other? The standard to aim for in a person is not to break the law?

/rant.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Damien

That Cameron's father was also morally wrong doesn't detract any responsibility from Jimmy Carr. Society should make these kinds of actions shameful and unacceptable.

True, but generally you should make sure your own house is in order before passing judgement on others.

Ken Livingstone found this out the hard way

[chris9991]

Having read The Times yesterday the tax avoidance scheme seems quite simple and could be used by any taxpayer quite easily (but no doubt there was a simplification)

Originally Posted by BenMcr

True, but generally you should make sure your own house is in order before passing judgement on others.

Ken Livingstone found this out the hard way

Yes, Fair enough. Cameron should be quiet about tax avoiders if he has done the same or is content to have people in his Government who have done the same. I am actually unsure if that's the case. Although I won't hold Cameron at fault for the actions of his father unless he continued to the trend.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Damien

Jimmy Carr's tax arrangements are morally wrong. There is something to be paid for being sensible and using the tax system to ensure you don't overpay tax, so you abide by the sprit of the regulations and ensure you're accidentally getting taxed twice or getting taxed on items that were not meant to be considered.

However it's something else entirely when you use loopholes that are only there because it's something the Inland Revenue hadn't yet considered, like a hacker exploiting a series of software bugs to break a system. When you pay a fraction of the relative tax rate that everyone else pays then that is morally wrong. You can't justify that imo, it's not being overtaxed, it's paying hardly any tax. When Carr says he pays the tax he is meant to pay and not a fraction more he is wrong. He is not paying what he is meant to pay, he is abusing the system as close as he gain without getting throw in jail to ensure he doesn't pay anywhere near what he is meant to pay.

That Cameron's father was also morally wrong doesn't detract any responsibility from Jimmy Carr.

Society should make these kinds of actions shameful and unacceptable. I can't stand the defence that a lot of his fans are offering that 'he hasn't done anything illegal'. Is this really is how little we've come to expect of each other? The standard to aim for in a person is not to break the law?

/rant.

Quite agree imo there's no difference between Carr and a benefit cheat.

Originally Posted by Maggy J

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18521468



and yet...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ens?CMP=twt_gu



Hmm! I'm sure someone will be along to inform me as to why the two cases are not the same.

To a certain extent, the tax system deliberately encourages avoidance. For example, different levels of road tax are designed to encourage drivers to buy more economical cars, thereby avoiding the higher rates of tax associated with gas-guzzlers.

However, there is a continuum which starts with avoidance that is encouraged, through a sort of simple, classic avoidance like opening a bank account in a jurisdiction with more favourable rates, ending in the sort of aggressive twisting, turning scheme that is right on the very fringe of what's honest.

I'm not going to start trying to judge whose tax affairs sit where in that continuum though.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Damien

I am actually unsure if that's the case.

As Robert Peston put it https://twitter.com/Peston/status/215524260234543104

In branding Carr's legal tax avoiding as "morally wrong" PM licences every journo to trawl tax affairs of every Tory donor, minister & MP

So I'm sure we'll find out

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

True, but generally you should make sure your own house is in order before passing judgement on others.

Ken Livingstone found this out the hard way

True.

Reminds me of an ongoing thing in my family. Two cousins are on an apparently high salary. High enough that they are in the top tax bracket. One will only stay in this country every 90 days. The other happily lives with his wife and children up north, and is constantly needling the one who lives abroad to avoid tax. His reasoning is that he considers that high rate tax payers have been given a good deal by this country. They owe it to the less fortunate to put something back.

Originally Posted by Chris

To a certain extent, the tax system deliberately encourages avoidance. For example, different levels of road tax are designed to encourage drivers to buy more economical cars, thereby avoiding the higher rates of tax associated with gas-guzzlers.

However, there is a continuum which starts with avoidance that is encouraged, through a sort of simple, classic avoidance like opening a bank account in a jurisdiction with more favourable rates, ending in the sort of aggressive twisting, turning scheme that is right on the very fringe of what's honest.

I'm not going to start trying to judge whose tax affairs sit where in that continuum though.

Surely the line is crossed when you're moving from intentional tax avoidance measures that the Government puts in place, such as the car example, to schemes which exploit loopholes that were not to be used in such a way but the set of circumstances in which they can be exploited were not envisioned by the Inland Revenue.

Originally Posted by Damien

Surely the line is crossed when you're moving from intentional tax avoidance measures that the Government puts in place, such as the car example, to schemes which exploit loopholes that were not to be used in such a way but the set of circumstances in which they can be exploited were not envisioned by the Inland Revenue.

Possibly, however if a loophole is acknowledged and yet not closed, what do you make of it then?

[chris9991]

If there is a morally wrong amount of tax to pay, when does it become a morally right amount? Or is all dodging wrong? And if it is, do I have to get rid of my ISA?

Originally Posted by Chris

Possibly, however if a loophole is acknowledged and yet not closed, what do you make of it then?

That either they are working on it or someone in a position of powers stand to benefit from it. I am pretty sure HMRC said they are looking into the loophole that Carr, and about 1000 others, are using but presumably they need to consider how to close it without impacting upon genuine investment. Unfortunately as The Times' story mentioned, the company involved are used to this and will simply go and exploit a different loophole.

---------- Post added at 22:38 ---------- Previous post was at 22:35 ----------

Originally Posted by chris9991

If there is a morally wrong amount of tax to pay, when does it become a morally right amount? Or is all dodging wrong? And if it is, do I have to get rid of my ISA?

An ISA is a scheme designed to promote saving and using the tax system to do it. You're abiding by the sprit of the law and the system when you use it, just as I benefited when my student fees for University were tax exempt.

It's morally wrong when you know you're exploiting a bug, an error, in the system to pay less than you're meant too. It's a cheat.